Paul Lambert

[Richard]

 

The Dempsey money was also available to him.  Should we include that?

Which was then spent on Benteke.

 

at the time we were told it was available in addition to the benteke money

[Isa]

No we can't because there are probably other instances that we don't know about.

 

At the end of the day I don't see why how much has been made available is such a big deal. The end result of what has been spent is all that matters.

Of course it is a big deal and only your narrative is getting in the way of conceding that. Because the argument that is continually churned out is that Lerner has given Lambert 'nothing' to spend, which isn't the case. From what we know of, he has been given at least ~£60m to spend. Hope that clears things up.

[pacbuddies]

Does anyone remember Wimbledon and the anti football they played? Fans of other clubs couldn't wait to see the back of them and were probably glad when they got relegated. 

 

Lambert has turned us into the club that everyone wants to see the back of.

 

We are dire.

[Risso]

 

We can't say with authority what has and hasn't been available therefore it only makes sense to go on what has actually been spent.

We can because he had a bid accepted for Cleverley. Therefore that was £8m that the board sanctioned him to spend. I'm not sure why this is being disputed.

 

 

We've also got Cleverley playing for us, so whether we've spent £8m on him or not, we've got that value of player playing for us.

 

Say Spurs sign Delph and Vlaar for nothing in the summer, they'd be getting two players who they'd think would be decent Premier League standard players; the fact that they cost nowt wouldn't mean that they were necessarily getting a worse class of player than a team who spent £10m.

 

We all know that Lambert hasn't had a fortunre to spend, but he's had enough that we shouldn't be playing the godawful football we are.  What exactly was the point for example, of signing Joe Cole?

[Isa]

 

We've also got Cleverley playing for us, so whether we've spent £8m on him or not, we've got that value of player playing for us.

This is a good point and we've loaned him with a buy clause. Interestingly, Everton's loans last season were not ignored in this way by many on here.

[CrackpotForeigner]

We've also got Cleverley playing for us, so whether we've spent £8m on him or not, we've got that value of player playing for us.

 

Let's say the whole team were made up of new loan signings. What would our spending be then?

[CVByrne]

Christ now the performance against Spurs was now superb, talk about some people having an agenda.

 

This comment sums up the problem with this thread. Take the comment about how we were playing superb against Spurs prior to the sending off. Realise that statement doesn't fit your biased view. So change the statement to be the whole 2-1 loss against Spurs as being described as superb, boom nobody cares if anyone actually said it. People believe someone said it because you attributed it to someone as their "agenda".

 

 

Sometimes I'm amazed at the things people post. But really, a football forum is by and large the last place for anything sensible or reasoned to be posted. The idea of debate is utterly impossible. 

[DCJonah]

People are just picking figures to suit their argument. You need to take many things into account. Gross spend doesn't paint the whole picture and neither does net spend.

Its obvious Lambert has had money to spend, arguing about the odd few million to suit your argument is pointless. Its also obvious that he hasn't had decent funds and wages available compared to the majority of premier league teams.

When you look at the whole financial picture its fair to say he's had it tough.

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

I actually agree that net-spends can be misleasing but if we do gross spend then Lambert has had ~£60m available so far (if we include the Cleverley money). So there really is no excuse.

 

Why include the Cleverley money? We haven't bought him.

 

I assume you're also including the Benteke money (out for about a season all up); the Kozak money (played about 5 games); the Okore money (played about 5 games); the Vlaar money (played about half the games) and the Helenius money (played about 2 games).

 

So proportioning it out you have to deduct, conservatively, 16 million from the remaining 52 million, leaving 36 million.

 

Divide that by three seasons, and you've got 12 million a season spent on a squad that had finished 16th and whose two most expensive existing players got injured half way along and haven't really recovered.

 

(Edited to include both Zog and Bent)

 

 

I don't think you made it past the first line, Isa, so be a good chap and say what you reckon about the rest of this. I would be genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts.

[Mantis]

 

No we can't because there are probably other instances that we don't know about.

 

At the end of the day I don't see why how much has been made available is such a big deal. The end result of what has been spent is all that matters.

Of course it is a big deal and only your narrative is getting in the way of conceding that. Because the argument that is continually churned out is that Lerner has given Lambert 'nothing' to spend, which isn't the case. From what we know of, he has been given at least ~£60m to spend. Hope that clears things up.

 

 

Oh, so what's my narrative then?

 

What we know is the key phrase there - we really don't know that much for sure, hence why money spent is the only figure that actually matters.

 

[Isa]

 

I don't think you made it past the first line, Isa, so be a good chap and say what you reckon about the rest of this. I would be genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts.

I didn't bother to reply to it because you are trying to shoehorn our injury problems into an entirely seperate debate which was namely how much Lambert has been able to spend vis-à-vis other clubs.

[DCJonah]

why money spent is the only figure that actually matters.

Its really not.

Delph didn't cost Lambert anything, should we ignore his contribution the team.

Benteke cost £7 million, does that low amount make him less of a player.

Money spent gives an idea into whats going on but there's other things you need to take into considerarion.

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

What exactly was the point for example, of signing Joe Cole?

 

I'm certain it was purely to get certain parties on VT to stop banging on about signing experienced players, so from that point of view it was the best free transfer money ever spent.

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

 

I don't think you made it past the first line, Isa, so be a good chap and say what you reckon about the rest of this. I would be genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts.

I didn't bother to reply to it because you are trying to shoehorn our injury problems into an entirely seperate debate which was namely how much Lambert has been able to spend vis-à-vis other clubs.

 

 

So not only do you maintain that Lambert's spending vis-a-vis other clubs is perfectly respectable, but you think that the astonishing number of injuries suffered by his squad is irrelevant in evaluating him as a manager on a thread presumably intended for evaluating him as a manager. O-kay...

[Isa]

So not only do you maintain that Lambert's spending vis-a-vis other clubs is perfectly respectable, but you think that the astonishing number of injuries suffered by his squad is irrelevant in evaluating him as a manager on a thread presumably intended for evaluating him as a manager. O-kay...

He has had to work on a budget, he is not the first or only manager to do this. But the limitations on his spending haven't be so severe that the results and football during his time here can be rendered acceptable.

As for the injuries, it's called having a squad. The fact we are so overly reliant on one player to provide a semblence of coherent offensive play is something that reflects badly on the manager, not something that should keep being used to excuse him.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Isa

[CrackpotForeigner]

He has had to work on a budget, he is not the first or only manager to do this. But the limitations on his spending haven't be so severe that the results and football during his time here can be rendered acceptable.

As for the injuries, it's called having a squad. The fact we are so overly reliant on one player to provide a semblence of coherent offensive play is something that reflects badly on the manager, not something that should keep being used to excuse him.

 

So, in conclusion, then:

 

Injuries are irrelevant, no matter who gets injured, because "it's called having a squad". And: There's no connection between the small budget and the fact that we've only got one player to provide coherent offensive play.

[Isa]

 

So, in conclusion, then:

 

Injuries are irrelevant, no matter who gets injured, because "it's called having a squad". And: There's no connection between the small budget and the fact that we've only got one player to provide coherent offensive play.

Not irrelevent, just can't be used to whitewash all of Lambert's faults as a manager and the appalling job he has done here.

[foreveryoung]

To sum it up, most of the players bought or loaned, remember Bertrand also. have not made a blind bit of difference to the team since Mcleish. 

 

On a different note, Liverplop fans are now talking about Roger's ablities now Sawarez has gone. Is this because there is no Sturridge or is this because he is a very limited manager??

[CrackpotForeigner]

To sum it up, most of the players bought or loaned, remember Bertrand also. have not made a blind bit of difference to the team since Mcleish. 

 

On a different note, Liverplop fans are now talking about Roger's ablities now Sawarez has gone. Is this because there is no Sturridge or is this because he is a very limited manager??

 

Or is it because keeping your best players and having them fit to play is way more important than who the manager is?

[pacbuddies]

 

To sum it up, most of the players bought or loaned, remember Bertrand also. have not made a blind bit of difference to the team since Mcleish. 

 

On a different note, Liverplop fans are now talking about Roger's ablities now Sawarez has gone. Is this because there is no Sturridge or is this because he is a very limited manager??

 

Or is it because keeping your best players and having them fit to play is way more important than who the manager is?

 

Not important if your manager is incapable of getting the best out of the players he has. Lambert could have Ronaldo & Messi and he would still play boring, defensive hoofball because that is his limitation.